Last week we introduced you to the European Green Finance Taxonomy, and its role in highlighting activities with a positive environmental impact. The drafting of this technical document of several hundred pages was signed in July 2021, but additional acts, such as those characterizing the fate of nuclear and gas in the energy transition, were drafted at the end of the year.
Before entering into the presentation of the nuclear debate led by the European Union, let us remind you that, in its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented the different energy mixes that are expected to be used under each climate scenario. Its forecasts of an increase in the share of nuclear and renewable energies between 2010 and 2030 remains a common denominator to all scenarios. While these statistics aggregate the potential energy mixes obtained on a global scale, they are not intended to advise states on the nature and proportion of each power source to target.
Discussions focused on how Europe would achieve its long-awaited carbon neutrality, a subject in which the question of the energy mix to be adopted is of course central. This reflection and classification is particularly crucial as it defines sustainable economic activity and guides investments under the Green Pact for Europe. Thus, an energy source characterized as "sustainable" will obtain the capital necessary for its development, while the others can be expected to decline gradually over the course of the century.
European powers, striving to agree on a common line for their green transition, have seen nuclear and natural gas return to the forefront, having been denied the title of "contributors to the green transition" in 2021. Nuclear power, which represented only 13.1% of the European energy mix in 2019 according to Eurostat, was only deemed conceivable by a small number of European powers, with France of course being its most fervent supporter.
Indeed, the share of nuclear power in the French energy mix stood at 41.1% in 2019, and the country has strongly contributed to reopening the debate within the European Union. According to Kadri Simson, the Estonian member of the European Commission responsible for energy since December 2019, the climate emergency, technological innovation and the competitiveness of "small modular nuclear reactors", less capital-intensive, easier to build and suitable for replacing coal or gas-fired power plants, call into question the exclusion of nuclear from the taxonomy. Indeed, it stresses the importance of supporting investments when existing plants are at risk of closing due to lack of funding "at the moment when it becomes most critical" and when Europe's energy independence is at risk. In addition, there is growing concern about variable renewables, where their dependence on uncertain weather conditions can make energy supply unpredictable.
Finally, Brussels has characterized nuclear power as "transitional green energy" while leaving each country free to make its own energy choices. While some renewable energy advocates are disappointed and feel that nuclear has no place as "green" energy, it seems that the Commission has sought to find a compromise while being realistic. Indeed, carbon neutrality could otherwise only be achieved through a drastic and rapid change in lifestyle that that the public is not yet willing to undergo.
However, Germany, Spain and Austria publicly denounce this decision while claiming that nuclear power is neither green nor sustainable. The fear of a massive detour of public and private funds to nuclear power at the expense of renewable energies is serious, and it undermines Europe's ability to agree on a clear course of action in its energy transition policy.
Comments